题目：
Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people.
，即使这些地区往往人迹罕至。
正文：
Conflicts between prolonging human existence and solving current societal problem lie in governmental issues consistently. In order to keep biological diversity and natural balance, it places emphasis on environmental preservation which includes issues on wilderness areas. Insofar as protecting such areas permits a more comfortable survival of offspring I concede the necessity of preservation. However, when the nation is short of economical and political self-sufficient ability and current issues abound in number, government would set higher priority to at hand problems.
Preservation of wilderness areas conducted by government assures an effective method of providing descendants access to comfortable prospective nature system.Creatures, directly or indirectly instrumental for people, suffered from an escalated scale of extinction as a result of human industrialization. Moreover, along with rapidly accruing population, startling developing technologies and, perhaps most important of all, continuously inflating human desire the size and amounts of such areas shrank gravely over periods. Gradually appearing phenomena revealed threats of disastrous consequences tomorrow. Scarcity of plants with photosynthesis mechanism increase CO2 in atmosphere and therefore resulting in global warming trends which molten sea ice to water and has inundated some of the territory, for example. Awareness of some people in the leading position calls for governmental policies that protect environment from being excessively trampled by human behavior. To protect wilderness areas by forces of government is one of the available and effective measures. Creatures there could afford a free landscape and secure surrounding to grow and rear offspring.Possibly, certain kinds of rare species would be preserved from extinction.
However, a government takes responsibilities not primarily for the moral justice but for well-being of populace and strength of the nation as a whole. Once the protection of such areas require too much economical or personnel support, the priority needs confirmation. Resources of any government are limited, and deficit occurs frequently even if it places little emphasis on such relatively marginal issues. This does not entail eschewing from accountability for destiny of prospective citizens or human beings altogether. It means concern for being responsible for its living residents to guarantee the advent of prospective society. Can a population which suffered and is suffering from mass starvation, unemployment and destructive warfare but focused on symbiosis relationship with other species exist long? In this sense, human needs to be somewhat selfish rather than completely generous at the risk of self sacrificing.
Granted that preservation of wilderness areas validate in allowing biological diversity and better natural environmental situation for our progeny, it is likely that we can not satisfy them in light of the decline in human evolution. Had our predecessors intensively focused in preservation and distributed much more financial budgets to these areas rather than they did exploit Alaska for petroleum, we would not reproduce so many instruments that facilitate us in daily life and communication and make realization of genetic structure in ourselves possible. Such case holds true to whom live after us. Although by concentrating more on technological and economical development harms environment in future, we may have worked out solutions such as cloning disappeared species, recreating adaptable climate and colonizing to other planets. After all, purposes of all policies, no matter protecting the environment or reinforcing economical and technological strength, serve ultimately to the well-being of human.
To an extreme extent, without effective resorts to reduce the birth rate, which means persistent enlarging of population, government may take measures exploiting such areas for residence rather than preserve them originally looking. After all, it would be nonsense to afford others' benefits until we substantiated ourselves. Admittedly, wild animals and plants are there to stay and compete much less than they did, and such behavior robbing their last residence could be regarded as cruel. Yet, we may distinguish which is crueler comparing with depriving the right of survival from our fellow. The nature had performed its principle: the one who adapt less will be eliminated.
In summary, we have moral responsibility to preserve wilderness areas for a brighter future and circumstance for our descendents. However, sometimes government has to lay down such idea in order to avoid jeopardize in domestic crisis. In addition, once needed, to meet the needs for survival of its citizens, the government ought to make alternatives of exploiting rather than preservation.
相关推荐: